[mink]

I wonder if it makes a difference whether the question was about the 5♣ bid or worded like "What are your responses to the blackwood question?". Both questions will likely get the same answer, so one could argue that they semantically equivalent. If mentioning the ♣ suit explicitly draws attention to that suit, isn't that achieved also by a question that avoids to mention the suit but nevertheless obviously refers to the 5♣ bid?

Karl

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2015-January-02, 19:15, said:

Before you can chose an opening lead, partner asks "what was 5 clubs?" (edited, many times)

Are you restricted, do you have a LA?

What was 5 clubs? An explanation of the auction might have a bearing on my lead.

Assuming it was some sort of a key card sequence, I don't see anything more than a very minor infraction. It sounds like partner forgot about the transfer and simply wanted to know what was going on before they led. The only UI I have received is that partner wasn't paying sufficient attention to the auction.

Given this assumption, any lead apart from the CA is IMO bizarre.

[pran]

It is the question itself that (illegally) draws attention to the club suit and therefore is questionable (to say it mildly).

And the player had absolutely no acceptable bridge reason for not holding his question until it is his turn to play!

Whatever the answer to this question might be, and whatever reason the player might claim for asking the question is IMHO completely irrelevant.

If there had been a possibility of misinformation on the 5♣ bid then he would have had cause for asking after his partner had selected his opening lead but before this lead was faced. But I cannot see any possibility for such misinformation here.

So the Director must in this situation prepare himself for the application of Law 16B and award an adjusted score if a Club was led and this lead turned out successful.

Given the Cards and auction I would not accept an assertion that a Club lead in this case was so obvious (beyond any doubt) that the player did not have any other LA.

[jillybean]

South did lead ♣A and then small to KJ983 (T3,2,T9854,KJ983) -1

I said I need to call the director after this hand, the question was inappropriate to which North responded with the usual "why? everyone asks those questions"
I believe these questions are asked out of a lack of understanding rather than a direct attempt to cheat however it must be dealt with by the book. This is A/X not BCD

So I called the director and he said he would get back to me. How would you rule?

---

[Bbradley62]

So, no one called the director until after defense had taken 2 tricks?

[jillybean]

I actually turned to South (friend and occasional partner) before he made the opening lead and said, "you know, if you lead a club I will have to call the director" but I did not call the director
until trick 2.

[Bbradley62]

If irregularities

jillybean, on 2015-January-03, 09:35, said:

must be dealt with by the book

why did you not call the director when the irregularity occurred, as the book dictates? I presume that you're East, since West is not allowed to call the director during the play of the hand.

But I am impressed that you didn't lose a trump in addition to the two clubs.

[jillybean]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-03, 10:26, said:

If irregularitieswhy did you not call the director when the irregularity occurred, as the book dictates? I presume that you're East, since West is not allowed to call the director during the play of the hand.

I did not call the director immediately because I get such a negative reaction from (some) directors and players when I do make director calls that it is not worth the grief.
Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly. Am I happy with this, no and I would rather call the director after an infraction but it is not the way things are done around here.

I think it is everyones responsibility to call the director after I draw attention to an irregularity, so I will let someone else do the dirty work.

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-03, 10:26, said:

But I am impressed that you didn't lose a trump in addition to the two clubs.

Thank you, my play is improving

[Bbradley62]

Since I'm not from "around (t)here", I don't know how y'all sorta kinda enforce the rules. Where I'm from, EW forfeited their right to rectification by answering the question (I presume it was answered, although you don't actually say) without calling the director, and NS deserves a procedural penalty, both under Law 11. I'm sure others will have different opinions.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-January-03, 02:44, said:

North had no lead directing double of 5♣ available. Instead he uses lead directing questions before South has selected his opening lead.

The Director should not prohibit a Club lead, but he shall stand ready to award an assigned adjusted score if the Club lead turns out successful. (Read Law 16C carefully!)

Famously, on the subject of Anti-Submarine Warfare, a US destroyer skipper said "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough!"

Bridge is not ASW, and the Director is not the skipper of a destroyer looking for enemy submarines. It is far more likely that North wants to know how many keycards declarer has and in his eagerness hasn't paid attention to protocol than that he has deliberately asked for a club lead.

And 16C has nothing to do with this case.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 03:39, said:

The obvious reason for partner's question is that he wants to know how many key cards declarer has shown. I'm surprised that people think that the question shows something in clubs, but perhaps I don't play in the right sort of games.

I don't think you do. Jillybean's other threads have noted that the games she plays in are shockingly conducted.

[blackshoe]

The question violates proper procedure as defined in Law 41A and B, as it was not made at the proper time (i.e., after the opening lead is made face down, and before it is faced). So a procedural penalty might be applied.

Also, the question, or its timing, might convey information to the questioner's partner. Such information is not authorized for use in determining the questioner's partner's actions. This is pure 16B territory. What, demonstrably, could the UI suggest? What are the LAs? Which La(s) are suggested over another LA by the UI?

The OP was not posed as a ruling question, rather as a puzzle for the questioner's partner: Is there UI? Does it suggest a particular lead? Have I LAs? Should I then make a different lead? I think the answers to these questions are yes, it could suggest a club lead, yes, and yes. I can see an argument for "all it suggests is that partner wants to know how many keycards declarer has," but the law says "could demonstrably suggest" and I think it's clear that given the timing of the question, the possibility of the suggestion to lead a club is pretty obvious. And I would say that even if partner didn't have a hand that seems to clearly like a club lead.

Proper procedure when UI is made available — in this case, when the question is asked — is to reserve one's right to call the director later. If the opponents agree there was UI, there's no need for the director at this time. If the opponents disagree that UI was made available, they should call the director immediately themselves. The director will come to the table, determine whether, in his judgement UI was made available, and instruct the players as to their rights and responsibilities. He will then ask the players to call him back if there later appears to have been an illegal use of UI. This second call should come after the play is over. At that time the TD will either rule whether there should be a score adjustment, and what that should be, or tell the table to score it as played, and that he will take the hand under advisement, and inform them later of his ruling (probably the latter, except in very simple cases).

Jillybean's comment to South might be taken as an attempt at intimidation. In any case, it is poor form.

Jillybean said:

Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly.

This is, of course, illegal. See Law 10A.

I understand Jilly's frustration with players and directors who either do not know the laws or do not care what they say. Nonetheless I think "falling into line" with the cultural bias here, while it may make for smooth sailing much of the time, is in the long run a losing approach. Follow the laws, and the devil take the hindmost. :-)

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-03, 12:34, said:

Famously, on the subject of Anti-Submarine Warfare, a US destroyer skipper said "Of course I'm paranoid! The question is, am I paranoid enough!"

Bridge is not ASW, and the Director is not the skipper of a destroyer looking for enemy submarines. It is far more likely that North wants to know how many keycards declarer has and in his eagerness hasn't paid attention to protocol than that he has deliberately asked for a club lead.

And 16C has nothing to do with this case.

Sorry, misprint for 16B

And as I have already said: It doesn't mattger why North illegally drew particular attention to the Club suit, the fact is that he did.

[pran]

jillybean, on 2015-January-03, 10:35, said:

I did not call the director immediately because I get such a negative reaction from (some) directors and players when I do make director calls that it is not worth the grief.
Infractions are typically dealt with by the players until a ruling is required and anyone doing otherwise is an anomaly. Am I happy with this, no and I would rather call the director after an infraction but it is not the way things are done around here.

I think it is everyones responsibility to call the director after I draw attention to an irregularity, so I will let someone else do the dirty work.

Law 16 B 3 said:

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

and

the footnote (**) said:

it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

(My enhancements)

[gnasher]

pran, on 2015-January-03, 15:23, said:

Sorry, misprint for 16B

And as I have already said: It doesn't mattger why North illegally drew particular attention to the Club suit, the fact is that he did.

Was it also a misprint when you said

pran, on 2015-January-03, 02:44, said:

The Director should not prohibit a Club lead, but he shall stand ready to award an assigned adjusted score if the Club lead turns out successful.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 15:41, said:

Was it also a misprint when you said

pran, on 2015-January-03, 02:44, said:

The Director should not prohibit a Club lead, but he shall stand ready to award an assigned adjusted score if the Club lead turns out successful.

No, the Director must never interfere directly with a player's call or play.

Each player is solely responsible for his own actions. The Director shall apply the relevant Law(s) when an action taken is found to have been illegal.

How would you rule if the Director in the case discussed here prohibited a Club lead and it was subsequently found that the Club lead would have been legal because the player really had no other LA? (Correct answer: Law 82 C!)

[gnasher]

pran, on 2015-January-03, 16:00, said:

No, the Director must never interfere directly with a player's call or play.

Each player is solely responsible for his own actions. The Director shall apply the relevant Law(s) when an action taken is found to have been illegal.

Yes of course. Who do you think said otherwise?

I was only asking about your choice of wording, which looks suspiciously like the wording of Law 16C.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2015-January-03, 10:20, said:

I actually turned to South (friend and occasional partner) before he made the opening lead and said, "you know, if you lead a club I will have to call the director" but I did not call the director
until trick 2.

To me (and to someone else who had no other context), this comment simply says 'I have weak clubs'. If I had any doubt about a club lead beforehand, your comment would have convinced me.

[Mbodell]

Was it IMPs or MPs? I suspect that most people will lead the club A here, and it is even more likely at MP (where a decent number of players always bang down A against small slams to not lose the overtrick). If you want to disallow it, you'd need to poll the S hand without any UI and see what is said. But I think the club A is a pretty good lead overall since you are decently likely to have a heart trick coming, and you also might win if partner has the club K and everyone has 2 clubs since the opponents are bidding on general strength and might well be off the AK of clubs.

[pran]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-04, 03:50, said:

Was it IMPs or MPs? I suspect that most people will lead the club A here, and it is even more likely at MP (where a decent number of players always bang down A against small slams to not lose the overtrick). If you want to disallow it, you'd need to poll the S hand without any UI and see what is said. But I think the club A is a pretty good lead overall since you are decently likely to have a heart trick coming, and you also might win if partner has the club K and everyone has 2 clubs since the opponents are bidding on general strength and might well be off the AK of clubs.

All this is very true, but it doesn't eliminate other leads as LA.

(And at IMPs I would consider the lead of ♣A rather poor. More often than not the lead of an ace against a small slam gives declarer his 12th trick on a silver plate.)